OK, I've been writing that Ward Connerly has taken advantage of affirmative action programs. I have no problem with people taking advantage of such programs.
I've come to understand affirmative action programs, in government contracts, as being pure set asides OR requirements that companies who win government contracts use some percentage of "disadvantaged companies" as subcontractors. Here "disadvantaged companies" tend to mean minority and/or women owned companies.
LaShawn Barber found it "repugnant" that I mention this because in previous "discussions", she has mentioned that she discussed this with him and he denied it.
So, I did some Googling...
The African American website had this:
Though some of his critics believed that Wilson contributed to his success, others disagreed. In addition, a Jet article cited a story in the San Francisco Chronicle which stated that he had accepted $140,000 over the years in affirmative action contracts from the government. Though roughly half of his business did indeed come from the government, Connerly disputed that it was affirmative action money, telling Donna St. George of the Knight-Ridder/Tribune News Service, "I don't think there's a minority around who hasn't benefited from the climate of inclusion that affirmative action has fostered. But I have never gone after the preference." He mentioned that he never listed himself on minority rosters, nor did he apply for minority "set-asides." However, Ayres in the New York Times reported that Connerly had indeed listed his firm as minority-owned in order to "keep all the benefits of a government contract." Pooley in Time, on the other hand, noted that Connerly had only disclosed his race after it was required.
The article mentioned is one that Ms. Barber said that Connerly disputed. The full article can be found here.
A follow up article by the Chronicle stated the following:
Contrary to the report, Connerly did not register as a minority businessman before receiving a 1989 contract for $1.1 million. Kent Smith, executive director of the Energy Commission, said he erred when he told The Chronicle that the contract was awarded under the state affirmative action law.
Although the law had been enacted when the contract was awarded, the law was not implemented at the Energy Commission until 1990.
It then continues:
Connerly did, however, receive two Energy Commission contracts in 1992 and 1994 as a minority businessman and agent for the California Building Officials, a group that, by law, had to be trained in energy conservation. The contracts were legally awarded without competitive bidding.
Furthermore, records made public this week by the Energy Commission show that Connerly again enlisted in the minority program on April 26 and May 4 of this year -- but the two contracts he sought were awarded to other bidders.
...
In an effort to explain his use of the program, Connerly submitted a statement last month to the Energy Commission that read in part: `We are disclosing our group identities solely because the state procurement process requires that minority and women owned businesses be used and it would work an extreme disadvantage to the proposer of this proposal to involve an additional subcontractor merely to comply with the (minority) requirement.'
This comes from the first article:
Connerly, in an interview, acknowledged that his firm participated in the `repugnant' race-based program, but he denied that it was affirmative action. Instead, he characterized the program as a `policy that requires that every contract . . . include participation of at least 15 percent of minority businesses and 5 percent of women.'
OK, that looks like an affirmative action program. In fact, this type of requirement has been called such and fought against by people who disagree with affirmative action. Lastly, Connerly filed a law suit against the law that required contractors to get minority contractor participation, but after the report.
Unless I'm missing something here, it looks like he took advantage of affirmative action programs. It doesn't matter that he didn't go after "disadvantaged" set asides or "disadvantaged" company participation.
http://www.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=1
cats like connerly take money from these folks and assume it's all good, but is it? i go back to my first question with respect to black republicans/conservatives - what are you trying to conserve - especially as it relates to the economic and political development of black folk?
more to the point, i would appreciate it if folks like connerly and other conservatives not advocate economic plans for black folk they don't advocate for their sponsors...imagine if Coors had to sell beer on merit...they'd be on welfare in a week - or if the Padres received concessions from San Diego based on performance.
if the California Board of Regents is as sleepy a group as the New York Board of Regents, i can't begin to tell you how unimpressed i am. the good news is that some coalitions in cali have had some success in this battle - though it's uphill given the array of $$$ thrown in support of connerly.
Posted by: Temple3 at July 24, 2005 11:39 AMBarber's on crack
I believe the more precise technical diagnosis would be strawberry..,
i go back to my first question with respect to black republicans/conservatives - what are you trying to conserve - especially as it relates to the economic and political development of black folk?
the individual advantages conferred on those willing to pledge coalitional allegiance with white-identity politics?
Now we know why he hates race-based forms. Considering that Connerly might not go any deeper than being a regular old businessman, it's perfectly logical that he tries to get his political pals to 'clean up' the law for him.
Posted by: Cobb at July 24, 2005 01:25 PMI wrote this, not as an attack against LaShawn Barber, just to support why I wrote that Connerly took advantage of affirmative action.
That's cool...I didn't mean to "attack" so much as to highlight what should be obvious contradictions in her processing of information[hence the flippant crack reference]...I certainly did not want to ascribe any undue criticism in your direction, particularly since I recognized the value of your post.
Posted by: Temple3 at July 25, 2005 09:24 AM"The paradox of his "humanity" is that he has staked out an individualist position in order to attack redress directed to a specific group with whom he only identifies under government compulsion - while it is precisely his phenotype which is presumed as a source of IDENTITY and EXPERTISE on matters relating to a group with whom he does not identify." - Temple3
All I have to say is booyah...hit the nail on the head with that one...
Posted by: Dell Gines at July 25, 2005 09:53 AMun yah your booyah. All you can say about Ward Connerly is that he has taken a contrarian position to that of the average black Joe. Who's to say that he doesn't identify? Maybe he does and is just saying, with regard to the arc of black progress, when you get to the level of being an independent millionaire businessman, the little racial identification on government forms is more of a hindrance than a help.
I grant you that he shows little regard to the arc of Civil Rights law and racial identification is a key element to that enforcement. My guess is that he percieves that the net benefits of such monitoring, such as it stands, does not accrue satisfactorily. Living as I do, outside the 'hood, I understand that point of view implicitly.
There are no minority benefits of any sort where I live. I have no idea what they are or where to get them. To the extent that I take pride in my family and our blackness, I could take exactly the same 'stigma' position as Connerly does, and in doing so, I recognize the condescention implicit in eschewing the 'stigma' position. As a successful black person, not living in the black community, with no clue as to what it is that racial identification gets po' folk, Connorly's position is perfectly logical.
His villification comes from the fact that he stands outside of the liberal and progressive traditions of black politics and is successful without them. There is no place else for liberals and progressives to put him except in the same bucket as 'The Man', who hates black people. This demonstrates a failure of liberals and progressives to visualize and respect black success outside of their political control. Instead of dealing with him just like a regular political opponent, he is painted as a race traitor. Is that fair?
Posted by: Cobb at July 25, 2005 10:20 AMcobb:
when you say you don't live in a black community, what does that mean? what is a black community? a community where blacks are herded together and reside in depressed economic conditions or is it a community where blacks choose to reside in proximity to one another for some purpose or anticipated benefit? or is it neither or both or is it irrelevant? i would argue that it matters and goes to the heart of the questions occasioned by connerly's position.
as i've said on several occasions, connerly's position does not rise to the level of an ideological disagreement precisely because he is advocating that which his sponsors would never advocate for themselves. Moores, Coors and the rest have established a persistent pattern of accruing benefits beyond the question of merit. the absurdity of connerly's position is his benefactors do not provide excellent products - hell, they're mediocre at best. to the extent that connerly has pocketed over $1 million bones is the extent to which he does not need to identify with the "black collective." moreover, his payments reflect his strident opposition to creating an environment where his "EXCLUSIVE" position of 'negro-arbiter of all things best for all americans' would be threatened. the social prestige (damn a little criticism from black folks who won't bust a cap in his ass) which has accrued to him, the connections to pete wilson and other republicans, etc. are worth their weight in gold and certainly worth the 'criticism' he receives.
the question at hand is actually not whether connerly is correct...the question is whether or not his position is compromised because it flies in the face of american business practice and is actually a subsidized position which he could not afford to promulgate on his own. connerly's position is untenable and hardly practiced in any recognizable manner in the realm of american capitalism.
Posted by: Temple3 at July 25, 2005 10:39 AMCobb, I don't understand this. It seems as if the prudent thing to do in this case is to back away. I wouldn't defend someone like Leonard Jeffries as far as I could throw him, even though he deems himself a nationalist.
Surely you've run across people who've actually KNOWN Connerly's family? I have and I wasn't even LOOKING. Given the way he carried himself before, and the way his family rolls, NO ONE was surprised at his behavior. Harold Cruse (old school cultural nationalist) was a contrarian. Adolph Reed (old school marxist) is a contrarian. Albert Murray (old school integrationist) is a contrarian.
Connerly? Don't make me hurl. He isn't even worth using to make your larger point.
Les, can you go into more detail about Connerly's family and how they roll? And what do you mean about his "behavior"? Really. I'm curious.
Cobb, some Blacks who agreed with Connerly's affirmative action stance had to disagree with him over his stance when he tried to get a proposition passed that would have made gathering of racial information even for medical research illegal.
I don't like going after a person by calling them a "sellout". I want to see the facts and let me decide for myself.
Right now on the afroam-l list, one guy keeps labeling me as "white thinking" while not providing much information other than the typical extreme socialist crap that doesn't hold up under light inspection.
Posted by: DarkStar at July 25, 2005 03:25 PM
Have any conservatives done comprehensive studies on the manner in which legal preferences for various groups create inefficiencies? The notioin that Connerly would focus on affirmative action is absurd...on what basis is he remotely concerned with this issue. He does not identify with black folks - he is an American and affirmative action is hardly the policy issue with the greatest impact of economic equity...he could look into the deal made between his $400K benefactor and the city of San Diego. Connerly's an old pimp - not much more.
It is fairly obvious that Connerly is a hired gun who has sought the best deal for himself - and from the standpoint of personal accomplishments remains a minor leaguer with national notoriety merely because of his purchased political positions. The paradox of his "humanity" is that he has staked out an individualist position in order to attack redress directed to a specific group with whom he only identifies under government compulsion - while it is precisely his phenotype which is presumed as a source of IDENTITY and EXPERTISE on matters relating to a group with whom he does not identify.
Connerly gets big money from confirmed white supremacists and gets coverage from the media owned by those same folks...Barber's on crack...the more I hear, the less I can appreciate...this really is not rocket science - where does Connerly get his loot from?? simple - he certainly does not get it from superior business acumen or towering intellectual capacity or even captivating oration...I hope his fake-a$! "shriveled-rights" group can work as aggressively on the sweetheart deals that rich folks get at the expense of municipalities and states.
http://www.equaljusticesociety.org/research_bigmoney_connerly.html
Posted by: Temple3 at July 24, 2005 11:25 AM